Who you REALLY need to be emailing about this

[PonyTime]

The admissions office is not making the decisions on these student athletes.

There is the FACULTY committee (3 individuals) that determines the fate of any athlete who is applying and that makes the final decision on these cases - this has been the setup since 1987. Of course, I would assume that Turner could over-rule the committee - but then what would be the use for the committee if he chose to do so? (they would be shown to have no power at all and would revolt).

Which three SMU faculty members are currently on this committe?

These are the individuals who you need to be contacting with your emails as they are the ones who are doing the damage to the school with these decisions.

[mr. pony]

There you go. I was thinking the same thing. This is the faculty - again.

[BIGHORSE]

We should have a "meeting" with these 3 people and "explain" the problem!!!





'

[couch 'em]

Interesting link: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0lnupoeUZMoJ:smu.edu/facultysenate/_site_archive/reports%2520and%2520resolutions/reports_2007_2008/report_admissions_financial_aid_subcommittee.htm+Athletic+Admissions+site:smu.edu&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

2. Admission of Student-Athletes. In the past, the Council gave special attention to the success rate of students admitted from category C because they had the weakest academic profiles and were believed to be the most at-risk. Last year we asked that future reports include all student athletes who enrolled with an admission ranking of 5.5 and below. Many of these students did not meet the current criteria for referral to the faculty athletic admission subcommittee, but they were still viewed as students at risk. Coincident with our interest in taking a closer look at the overall admission decision process, the Provost appointed a committee chaired by Dan Orlovsky to review admission procedures for student athletes. This committee’s recommended changes in the procedures were presented to the University Admissions Council on April 23 where they were unanimously approved. Professor Orlovsky will present his committee’s recommendations to the Senate in a separate report.

There are 115 students in the first-year class who were admitted with an admission rating (ADR) of 5.0 or below. Thirty-eight (33%) of these were student-athletes. Among these 38 student-athletes, 16 (42%) had less than a 2.0 cum GPA at the end of the fall 2007 semester. Among the 77 non-athletes with an ADR of 5.0 or below, only 6 (7.8%) had a cumulative GPA less than 2.0. The disproportionate number of poor-performing students who were athletes probably reflects the crisis in the football program, which was demoralizing to the players and led to a loss of discipline. Some of the young new students were caught up in this. Among all the other first-year student-athletes (i.e., those with higher than 5.0 ADR; total of 69), only two had a GPA less than 2.0. Thus, the majority (83%) of our incoming student-athletes, with the help of the A-LEC, etc., had a good first semester.

Not the athletic admissions subcommittee, but interesting anyway http://www.smu.edu/FacultySenate/Committees%20and%20Subcommittees/Athletic%20Policies%20Committee.aspx

MEMBERS:
Athletics Policies Committee
Chair (1 year term) Dan Orlovsky (Dedman I)
Members to 2012 Lynn Romejko Jacobs (SEHD)
Members to 2011 Ken Hamilton (Dedman I)
Ben Johnson (Dedman I)
David Willis (Engr)
Member to 2010 Patty Delaney (Meadows)
Dan Orlovsky (Dedman I)
Matthew Wilson (Dedman II)
Executive Committee Liaison Dennis Foster

[couch 'em]

April 15th '09, the faculty already was complaining:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CuyH2IoA9nkJ:smu.edu/facultysenate/meetings.asp+Athletic+Admissions+subcommittee+site:smu.edu&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

...Professor Wilson discussed the Mustang Club’s progress toward its targeted fundraising goal of 2 million dollars, the relationship between the academic marginality of incoming student athletes and the likelihood of their graduation, the ....

[HB Pony Dad]

There are 115 students in the first-year class who were admitted with an admission rating (ADR) of 5.0 or below.

Thirty-eight (33%) of these were student-athletes.

Among these 38 student-athletes, 16 (42%) had less than a 2.0 cum GPA at the end of the fall 2007 semester.

Among the 77 non-athletes with an ADR of 5.0 or below, only 6 (7.8%) had a cumulative GPA less than 2.0.

The disproportionate number of poor-performing students who were athletes probably reflects the crisis in the football program, which was demoralizing to the players and led to a loss of discipline. Some of the young new students were caught up in this.

Among all the other first-year student-athletes (i.e., those with higher than 5.0 ADR; total of 69), only two had a GPA less than 2.0. Thus, the majority (83%) of our incoming student-athletes, with the help of the A-LEC, etc., had a good first semester.

This report apparently is from Fall 2007.

What "crisis in the football program" is referenced?

Why were the FB players enrolled in programs in which a 2.0 grade was so difficult to achieve?

I would like to see the data under JJ's tenure and hopefully see some improvement from this dismal report.

[RGV Pony]

This report apparently is from Fall 2007.

What "crisis in the football program" is referenced?

we still sucked. And were still stuck with PB. And a crappy 'model.' Well, maybe 2/3 of that has improved.

[PonyTime]

[quote="HB Pony Dad"][quote="couch 'em"]

Why were the FB players enrolled in programs in which a 2.0 grade was so difficult to achieve?

[quote]

You hit the nail on the head with this one!

[PK]

The disproportionate number of poor-performing students who were athletes probably reflects the crisis in the football program, which was demoralizing to the players and led to a loss of discipline. Some of the young new students were caught up in this.

Among all the other first-year student-athletes (i.e., those with higher than 5.0 ADR; total of 69), only two had a GPA less than 2.0. Thus, the majority (83%) of our incoming student-athletes, with the help of the A-LEC, etc., had a good first semester.

This report apparently is from Fall 2007.

What "crisis in the football program" is referenced?

Why were the FB players enrolled in programs in which a 2.0 grade was so difficult to achieve?

Not sure whether the programs were so difficult or that the FB players just didn't take it seriously. 83% did well...so it may have to do more with the kids than the classes.